SynthesisClinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association2025
Neoplastic Progression Risk in Females With Barrett's Esophagus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Individual Patient Data.
Synthesis in Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Simple, Interpretable Machine Learning Model Based on Clinical Factors Accurately Predicts Incident Dysplasia or Malignancy in Barrett's Esophagus.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Article
- Anti-reflux mucosectomy superior to argon plasma coagulation in managing Barrett's esophagus by improving lower esophageal sphincter pressure and cardiac sphincter valve function: a single-center, retrospective study.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Advances of aptamers in esophageal cancer diagnosis, treatment and drug delivery.Beilstein journal of nanotechnology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsFemales with Barrett's esophagus (BE) have a lower risk of neoplastic progression than males, but sufficiently powered risk analyses are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data (IPD) aimed to provide more robust evidence on neoplastic progression risk in females.
methodsWe conducted a systematic literature search of 3 electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Google Scholar) from inception until August 2023. Eligible studies (1) reported original data on progression from nondysplastic BE, indefinite for dysplasia, or low-grade dysplasia to high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma; and (2) included female and male patients. IPD were quality controlled by 2 independent reviewers. The primary outcome was the association between sex and neoplastic progression risk, adjusted for risk factors using multivariable Cox regression analysis. Secondary outcomes were sex differences in time to progression and annual progression rate.
resultsIPD were obtained from 11 of 66 eligible studies, including 2196 (31%) females. Neoplastic progression risk was lower in females (hazard ratio for males vs females, 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.82) after adjusting for age, smoking, medication use, hiatal hernia, BE length, and baseline pathology. The annual progression rate was 0.88% in females vs 1.29% in males. Time to progression was similar in both sexes: 3.7 years (interquartile range, 2.1-7.7 years) in females and 4.2 years (interquartile range, 2.0-8.1 years) in males.
conclusionAlthough females had a lower neoplastic progression risk, sex differences were smaller than previously reported, and time to progression was similar for both sexes. Future research should focus on other factors than sex to identify low- and high-risk BE patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.